Man’s Mimesis and Liberal Capitalism: Handmaids of Global Moral Change

Why is it that Western liberal moral attitudes are spreading virtually unchecked in some societies while so many people in others are scandalized by them, despite the fact that all those societies are seemingly being affected by similar globalization processes? Does it have to do with those societies’ relative closeness or distance vis-à-vis those of the West?

As always it is also worthwhile to ask in this context, or once again realize, what is the ultimate source of the moral message now associated with liberal capitalism. 

I am convinced that trying to integrate Jonathan Haidt's insights concerning man’s moral foundations into a Girardian mimetic framework is a worthwhile exercise. As has been aptly noticed, the insights of Girard and Haidt can supplement, and perhaps also correct, each other in important ways, offering a fuller picture when brought into dialogue with each other than either does on its own.

Consequently, I am also persuaded that those interplaying insights could be applied equally fruitfully now that Haidt is charting new territories, ones that from a different angle have been covered by Girard, if only incidentally (but more fully by some of his followers): man’s moral foundations with liberal capitalism as a global moral trend-setter, on the one hand, and man’s mimetic endowment as a volatile global dynamic, on the other. Scrutinizing how changes in the former might be influenced by the latter certainly promises to be rewarding.

First a few broad strokes on the situation in the West, the springboard for both theories.

Man’s moral foundations in a post-Christian world… My take on it, following the general approach of Girard and many others, is that the role of Jesus in setting in motion a process of revolutionary change starting in His homeland was fundamental. The spreading of His message, gradual and halting as it has been, is normally ascribed by Christians to supernatural causes. But the obvious truth is that only now – in a post-Christian world – are some of those changes coming to fruition, arguably with the help of liberal capitalism.

Now Jesus’ strongest concern was for the victims and the underprivileged. And so two millennia ago He set about virtually subverting those moral foundations that could not be brought in line with this paramount concern of His, especially that of the sanctity understood as pollution-avoidance, while also redefining the others [I covered that here: http://walterwilkans.blogspot.com/2015/11/jesus-paradigm-shift-in-mans-moral.html ]. But this process of cultural change is also bearing bitter fruit these days, as exemplified by the growth of victimhood culture, which apparently represents a perversion of the Christian message, including in the way it handles the issue of justice.

But why is it that some people in the West still espouse values grounded on a broader set of moral foundations, arguably thus obfuscating the primacy of victim-care, while others, seemingly including most victim advocates, apparently on a truncated one, but one where justice often is understood in an idiosyncratic if not self-serving fashion? Among many possible explanations there is one based on how capitalist liberal modernity is embraced by that system’s haves, while being rejected by its have-nots. While that might seem very simplistic, those (relative) haves and the have-nots are often taken to be mindsets given to ressentiment, which disposition not necessarily or not fully is reflective of reality.  

Mimetic theory could actually supplement the above. Let me just point to the obvious fact that Western societies currently are in a state of permanent internal mediation, with a constant threat of it breaking into scapegoating and eventually violence. The democratic electoral system actually contributes – at least for the time being – to this state being permanent, while at the same to disabling its potentially violent consequences. Just look at how many election returns are close to 50/50: voters on both sides get entrenched in their positions, while violent intergroup scapegoating on a large scale is made virtually impossible. And once you join a mimetic crowd on either side you tend to stay with it for the duration, thus reinforcing also in the process those moral preferences of yours that went into the making of your political choice.

Now in a globalizing world increasingly, and more and more rapidly, embracing some at least aspects of modern capitalism, there are indications of some of the same processes at work in places and in peoples far away from the West – and not so far away.

Those closer to home, especially in the Moslem world do not seem to be taking too well to liberal capitalism’s apparent concern for victims, though their populations certainly have considerable pockets of wealth and leisure associated in the West with such attitudes. Why?

Mimetic theory comes in handy: they are the West’s mimetic twins, en bloc, as a society. Both cultures are mutually locked in an internal mediation that does often these days actually erupt into violence. This type of mimetic reciprocity obviously largely prevents the Moslems’ acting as individuals open to what, good or bad, modern capitalism has to offer. And that seemingly includes victim care. The status of the woman is a case in point: blanket defense of their cultural/religious positions entails being closed to pertinent moral argumentation or sensitivity. And obviously the moral foundations of the regular Moslem cannot but be a solid full set, yet such where especially justice and care differ considerably from their Western equivalents, while liberty is brought into the service of the community. 

But globalization is spreading apace, capable of undermining, if not undoing, some of their shared attitudes. Social media’s role cannot be  overestimated. Yet, the more and the deeper the inroads of modernity, the more intense the internal mediation – and the more violence: such is one largely unintended, and ultimately sinister, result of social media’s presence in the Moslem world. From the perspective of the defenders of tradition, both self-appointed and official, this is how the modicum of modern capitalist attitudes they allowed and the Western technologies they failed to fully control at home, are all coming home to roost. Consequently, those attitudes must be eradicated, and technologies pressed exclusively into their own service, or at least brought under control, also at their source in the West. The insidious model/obstacle has to be eliminated. Thus the jihad brought on by an internal mediation with the West that has escalated to extremes is seen as a justifiable defensive stance. While the West in a knee-jerk fashion duly responds with the “defense of democracy” posture or involvement on the ground. Globalization enveloping mimetic doubles!

The same apparent set of outer circumstances, including a history of being subjected to Western colonialism and/or exploitation and/or war, does not result today in the same attitudes in such Far Eastern countries as China, but also Korea, Japan and others; and, astonishingly to some, Vietnam. There is good reason for that: they do not seem to see or experience the Westerners, and consequently Westerners them, as their mimetic doubles. It obviously has to do with their “native” religions and cultures being fundamentally so different from that of the West (as opposed to the latter and Islam). Probably also with the geographic distance, and, some would argue, also with the relative lesser genetic proximity. All of that makes them relatively much more secure about their identity when facing the West, and certainly much less threatened in that respect as compared to Islamic culture. The result is that their undeniably mimetic approach to the West (and vice versa) is one of external mediation, not internal. This allows their societies’ acting vis-à-vis the West in a diversified way, reflective of their members’ individual status in society (not in the largely en bloc fashion characteristic of the Moslem world, which tends to mask internal divisions).

The importance of the vilified globalization for the intersocietal distribution of liberal capitalist attitudes, including victim care, needs to be emphasized in this context. The Far East seems to be in love with globalization, benefitting from it considerably as a whole, and seemingly glossing over its sinister consequences, for the time being at least. But the latter is starting to change to some extent, the environment now seen by some as “victim” too.

Now the growing sensitivity to the fate of victims can plausibly be ascribed to Far Eastern beneficiaries of globalization taking their mimetic cues from their well-to-do Western counterparts, both groups actually living in a global village enabled by the media that capitalism developed and made available, with the rapidly growing role of social media. Oddly to some, but predictably for others, their sense of justice seems to be taking on the self-serving quality of many liberal Westerners, and that in a social environment that is much harsher economically than that in the West. 

Whereas, in a seeming cultural reversal, among the denizens of the post-Christian West there are considerable populations lacking this “victim” sensitivity or outrightly intolerant of its aims and the underlying moral message, which lack of sensitivity in the Far East they share mostly with their less-well-to-do equivalents.

This situation actually throws in bold relief another facet of globalization – and human mimesis, for that matter – that of the apparent affinity of people on analogous rungs of their respective societies. Accusations on the part of defenders of traditions, of disloyalty leading to intrasocietal disintegration and atomization of their societies thus seem justifiable. Yet modern man – busy caring for his/her choice victims, as s/he is – couldn’t care less, if s/he understands them at all. S/he is a free (wo)man, a free moral agent, after all. 

And that in turn makes it all the more easy for global corporations to conduct their global operations on a global scale – manifesting a third aspect of globalization, the most hated one. Man’s mimetic desire – at its most potent, volatile and fragile, but still largely nonviolent, or with violence well-hidden – may finally be seen here for what it naturally is or at least can be: a force of globalization. Globalization feeding on mimetic desire and working with it hand in hand – on both sides of the consumer/purveyor divide.

A few final thoughts:

Is it really justifiable to see the above, as many critics of globalization do, as a case of brinksmanship placing us all squarely but one small (mis)step away from apocalypse (not to mention the inherent rampant injustices of that process)? 

To be able to answer the first part of this question in the negative with justified assurance or hope the third Girardian mediation, the innermost mediation, would have to be introduced on a meaningful scale. In the (post-)Christian world it can only be centered on Christ, as Rene Girard made it clear. But the Far East with its rich antinomic spiritual concepts such as wu-wei, is certainly capable of providing solid foundations for its own brand or equivalent of innermost mediation. Kenosis seems to be implicit in wu-wei, just as it is pivotal in the case of true Christ-centered innermost mediation, boding well at least for man’s potential to get a handle on his mimetic desire – both East and West. But will there be enough humans mediating others into vast and peaceful expanses of their own souls for them to find there the source of their own innermost mediation – before we all self-destruct? 

In the Far East the issue is still moot, as manifested also by counterproductive calls in China to reject "Western values" and to re-embrace instead the traditional Confucian ones. Such calls can only lead that civilization into an internal mediation with the West that seemingly so far has largely been avoided. The West would then duly follow suit. (Yet Japan’s post-second-world-war history clearly demonstrates that such a development is not predetermined). 

But the issue is moot also in the West – and it would be so even in the absence of any mimetic twins closer home that are making moving in the right direction all the more difficult. The West is seemingly closer to the brink also as a result of its own internal mimetic processes, as aptly described by Girard, resulting in a situation where delusion and blindness reign.  

Could it be though that the West’s and the East’s mutual mirroring of each other at the level of external mediation that we are witnessing actually is contributing to our survival as a species at this arguably late and inherently dangerous stage of man’s development? 

We on both sides should be wary of espying ourselves in the mimetic mirror, instead of our partners in that largely mutually beneficial and nurturing mimesis, with its rather clearly differentiated yet dynamically adjusting roles, including economic ones. Before too long we would see in that mirror certain features we would be anxious about, such as resentment or hatred, and then would project them onto our newly created mimetic twins. We know it pretty well from elsewhere.

But we must not let apocalypse loom all the lager on the horizon. In this mimesis-driven globalizing world of interdividuals let us mutually keep respectful distance. If it required falling back on Christ-centered innermost mediation or, respectively, on the practice of wu-wei, so much the better for all of us if we would heed that call.  

Spiritual Pitfalls of Media-Driven Mimesis

It seems fair to say that man pulled himself up by his own mimetic bootstraps, leaving behind his animality and creating culture, religion and economy to subsist on. As well as the various media, which are both his products and extensions. They serve now as  tools with which to change his world – by propagating their contents and enabling (the pulling in of) more and more people into the mimetic dance.

The varieties of mimesis that are effected by the media tend to be by and large negative. With a medium’s growing incidence the negativity snowballs – within man’s heart and soul to begin with, and eventually enveloping societal institutions. It pushes out the good, right-brain mimesis of empathy, closing or hardening one by one all the outlets in man’s heart that enable man to act on the impulse. It also hardens man’s outlook on how societal institutions should embody empathy.

Every instance of empathetic mimesis, of being actuated by empathy, works miracles in the heart, hardwiring us all the more for love. So the question is as follows: could it be that such mimesis does not have any media to be channeled by, enlarged and communicated? Must it really be relegated to spur-of-the-moment individual reactions of effective or at least relative powerlessness? Hardly. So why is it then that the media cannot be used as virtual extensions into the wider and wider expanses of the world of man’s  empathy-channeling mirror neurons? The answer is that bad, left-brain violence-prone mimesis has been found to pay by far more handsome dividends to the media masters. 

But what about the religion of brotherly love, Christianity, apparently founded on sentiments of empathy? Are not both its teaching and practice supposed to be mediating empathy and love? Why is it failing in its task, functioning not unlike any sacrificial religion of the past? Failing to see as its calling the unceasing empathy with all the underprivileged, as shown by Jesus? So, what kind of medium into man’s heart religion actually is? Why are we not able to live out of the abundance of love that God is, naturally harmonizing with and favoring empathetic mimesis? Why even Christianity seemingly cannot resist the pull of bad mimesis? Is it because its abundant love does not seem abundant any more? But has it ever felt like that for large proportions of its adherents?

Every medium has its proper realm within man’s heart to work upon, affecting eventually societal institutions. That is an important realization, especially in view of the fact that much of media‘s insidious work is effected by the – purposeful more often than not – creation of a scarcity situation, shown and  perceived as such. Scarcity in the heart, then in society.

Scarcity moves one from an appetite-like position of craving for things necessary for one’s survival, affection and control needs, with jealousy as a spiritual danger – about choicest things around to be had or to enjoy; gluttony, lust and avarice being jealousy’s companions here – and onto the place in the heart where bad mimesis reigns, where the danger of mimetic rivalry that could degenerate into violence becomes real.

It all leads to media-instigated envy, whose “scarce” object has been created or propagated by the media. But now, depending on the type of media and one’s position relative to it (consumer or tout, including of oneself), we either stay with envy, and anger or despondency, as the case may be depending on how successful we perceive ourselves in the pursuit of the object, or we might yield to sentiments of narcissistic vainglory or hubris.

Narcissistic self-love represents a move from external to internal mediation, best in evidence when two opponents are vying for control in a mimetic dance; whereas hubris more often than not is the pitfall or actual sin of those who ostensibly surrender to innermost mediation in their hearts while aiming to be or considering themselves spiritually perfect. Even if their innermost model epitomizes charitable love, what they actually exercise then is only prideful love of self.

Radio and TV are the media of external mediation, for those on their receiving end – consumers of whatever wares, physical, spiritual, political, tempted into exercising their imagination, while celebrities as well as politicians are allowed to wallow in vanity. Everything engineered by the media masters.

And what about radio’s and TV’s empathy mediation? It is their masters’ choice to effectively block those two media, but especially TV, despite their evident capabilities, from being used in that capacity, at least on a sustained, meaningful basis. And the chief reason thereof has already been mentioned above: for the media masters another medium comes into play, drawing them into their own mimetic mediation and rivalry: money. 

Money properly belongs among the media (medium of exchange, including of societal “information” about the relative “worth” of its members ). In fact it is the most powerful among them, and one with probably second-longest history (language is first, writing follows closely).  And just as any medium, it has undergone massive changes – lending and credit, empty-money creation by governments, derivative instruments, etc. Other media fall by the wayside and disappear or become mere “figures” against a newly ascendant medium’s “ground,” money seems indestructible.

Money thrives on scarcity, in fact it is preeminent among them in that respect. Where the other media would use an adroitly tailored content to convey an impression of scarcity, for money it is enough to make itself scarce for the targeted “audiences,” so to speak, to accomplish the task. With money figure and ground fully blend.

Now digital media are already – and will be even more so in the future – a stage for vainglorious self-love, with precariousness of this narcissism showing when internal mediation all of a sudden and unexpectedly changes its polarity. But they are also a powerful undifferentiator, in a manner that neither radio nor TV have been, with all its inherent – as predicted and described by Rene Girard – dangers. They are also the undifferentiator of the traditional media preceding them, all of them – printed books, radio, TV – just figures or content of digital media’s ground, allowed varying and changeable degrees of importance by the users (a better description here than “consumers”). The big deal about digital media is their role in enhancing and extending their users’ memory function.

The transition from radio to TV represents also a move from the local or tribal to the global, whereas the current transition to digital media is a move from mere receptivity to apparent creativity, as well as to mimesis-enhancing networking, signifying a seemingly global empowerment. But what it also actually does for the moment is fanning the flames of narcissism.

Yet when and if it is truly internalized in the depths of one’s heart, when it transitions from the precarious internal mediation to innermost mediation, it might yet become truly creative. Whether it is going to be Luciferian creativity or one guided by the Holy Spirit is another matter, though. As we know Lucifer is the epitome of hubris, whereas Holy Spirit-imparted charitable love can only thrive on humility, on denial of self-love.

Digital media with their plenitude of information and networking as well as mimetic potential are a double-edged sword. They are capable on the one hand of “dividing soul and spirit asunder,” of imparting to us self-understanding and facilitating spiritual discrimination in the here and now, thus enhancing our empathy capabilities; but on the other hand, of dividing our faculty of will: “for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I,” if we succumb to spiritual pitfalls inherent in them excessively exercising media-driven, bad-mimesis-prone imagination.

Only when pursuing a life of mindfulness and contemplation and approaching digital media in a spirit of humility, as well as unceasingly falling back on our gradually developing faculty of spiritual discernment can we hope that the new media will truly empower us and help us be integrated and more loving, that they help us move freely with the Holy Spirit. That they are going to be our extensions into heaven, and not into hell.

One last thing: the notion that media content does not matter, that “the medium is the message,” as famously stated by Marshall McLuhan, is deceptive. On one hand, it seems to be taking the onus off the media masters and giving them unjustifiable leeway as to content choice, which in that situation will obviously be money-driven. On the other hand, the truth of that statement in my opinion is limited and consists only in that that the media enormously widen the scope and enhance the power of any media-carried message, which phenomenon many a time outweighs the very importance of their content. But the content matters, one might even say that the widening and enhancing makes the problem of content all the more important. And that is precisely why with the media spiritual discernment should all the more be brought into play.

Some Evagrian Insights for a Girardian Ethic

Any “Girardian” ethic would arguably have to be both truly Christian in spirit and radical: while benefitting from Mimetic Theory’s insights into the mechanisms of man’s desire, it would have to be squarely based on the commandment of mutual love, “love [of] one another just as I [Christ] have loved you,” with the commandment of nonviolence, based on Sermon on the Mount passages, figuring eminently, so as to preempt scapegoating. Moreover, one would have to be exhorted to be ready to “lay down his life for his friends,” just as did Jesus the innocent scapegoat, whose self-sacrifice was meant to bring sacrificial scapegoating to an end. The process still not completed, now it is the Girardians’ turn to carry the torch, if need be. In fact, now that humanity is denied the use/moral validity of the peace-bestowing scapegoat mechanism, their responsibility is nothing less than averting the impending apocalypse by nonviolent means. If this could only be accomplished by yet another innocent-yet-willing scapegoat, one should be ready.  He/she would be the personification of the noblest ideal of that ethic, the true embodiment of the love of neighbor, of one’s society in desperate need of peace – and love. This would be a truly Girardian twist to Jesus’ commandment of seeking “to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Is it even possible to formulate such a radical ethic that could then be actually put to practice? What will be demonstrated below is that there are at least two valuable sources to draw on in attempting this task. One of them serving more as a foil rather than as a true source (Buddhism), whereas the other (early Eastern Christian thought) will hopefully be shown as being surprisingly relevant as well as useful, though its goals and scope obviously do not entirely coincide with those of a prospective Girardian enquiry.

Firstly, it must be noted that nothing even close to such a radical ethic has so far been formulated in historical Christianity, and even practice of the much less demanding "love of one’s neighbor as oneself" commandment has been mostly dismal. It is Buddhism, both  in its dharma and to some extent also in its practice, that is seemingly much closer to the spirit of both Christian “love” and “nonviolence” commandments, though it arrives there from an entirely different set of basic ontological and anthropological assumptions. Paradoxically, the latter apparently have some common ground with Girardian anthropology, though their broader respective general outlooks are markedly different.

The uncanny similarity consists not only in that that both Buddhism and Mimetic Theory assign a pivotal role to desire but also in that the Mimetic-Theory-posited triangular nature of human desire unmistakably evinces the inherent nothingness of the desiring man. And though arguably this nothingness is not metaphysical or ontological (contrary arguments could also be put forward), but rather psychological, a Buddhist flavor is undeniable. Moreover, this psychological nothingness has far-reaching consequences for man as a moral agent. The Girardian mimetic interdividual comes across as much more nihilistic at his/her core than the stand-alone Buddhist pursuing his/her path of avoidance of suffering, but one imbued with loving-kindness towards their fellow humans. That love goes to redeem the Buddhist’s apparent nihilism, something that the “basic” Girardian interdividual seems to be lacking altogether.

In my opinion, moreover, it is a misperception, or misrepresentation, as the case may be, to treat Buddhism as ontologically nihilistic. Buddha’s supposed nihilism, as embodied in his no-self teaching, arguably is pedagogical in nature. It is expected to drive home his fundamental Anicca teaching, having to do with the basic impermanence of existence. On the psychological plane it can only be expected to have a lasting imprint if the metaphor of no-self is employed. And, it can be plausibly argued, that that is what Buddha actually did. I posit that a prospective MT ethic could benefit from the use of that seemingly nihilistic metaphor – at least at its mystical limits, namely when Christ-the-innermost model is to be imitated. As will be shown later on, it bears on the interplay of true love and love of self.

As mentioned above, Buddhism ties in most clearly with MT in that both assign a crucial role to desire. Buddhism, which does not view it as mimetic, has only a negative opinion of any form of desire, treating it as something to be avoided or detached from. No mileage here from this basic human endowment, responsible, as it is, for much of human learning, among other things. But not much either in MT, at least hardly anything positive as far as man as a moral agent is concerned. In both Buddhism and in MT human desire stands condemned, although on different counts.

Neither does calling MT’s internal model/obstacle of desire “metaphysical” amount to much, at least again not much positive. Yet this appellation might in fact be Girard’s giveaway of his deep intuitions. But any ontology built on a Girardian metaphysical model that is seemingly essentially negative would appear nihilistic. Unfortunately, even the moral potential of imitating the innermost model is left largely unexplored, this time possibly as this would draw Girard into yet another field altogether, namely that of theology, or even mysticism.

So it may have been Girard’s fear of nihilism permeating Mimetic Theory, as it arguably does when mimetic desire is seen as taking center stage in man, and that consequently could also compromise any ethic that might supplement it, that was decisive for his refrainment from any formulation of an ethical system on top of his anthropology. Yet given the highly moralistically charged nature of his thought AND his professed Christianity, such an effort would seem only natural. Obviously it cannot be precluded that, conceiving himself first and foremost as an anthropologist, he simply wanted to maintain purity of discourse and thus consciously chose to abstain from any foray into the field, at least in any systematic form.

Yet despite all those reservations an ethic crowning Mimetic Theory is certainly not only feasible but also called for. And from the point on in the development of MT when its author posited the innermost mediator/model, namely Jesus Christ, as the model to imitate, it need not have been nihilistic. Instead, it would have been an ethic of love. The Redeemer would have redeemed MT’s nihilism.

Now any rigorous formulation of a “Girardian” ethic, Christian – not Buddhist – in character as it doubtless would have to be, would certainly benefit from insights afforded by the early Church’s Eastern Fathers and other spiritual writers. The thought of Evagrius Ponticus, a fourth century desert monk, is especially valuable. He developed a set of eight logismoi, or evil passions, ever ready to attack man. (They eventually became the basis for the Western Church’s seven deadly sins.) What is even more important for this discussion is that they all are said to stem from the fundamental or root passion, that of philautia, or self-love.

Instead of treating the logismoi as separate entities, I tend to see them as so many manifestations of love of self. Such an approach is especially useful when collating the unfolding of the stages of mimetic desire at work in man with the Christian’s quest for perfection (or holiness or theosis, divinization), where self-love is found to be the soul’s chief obstacle to loving both God and neighbor (the basis of any Christian ethic), rearing its ugly head as it does in various situations as one is navigating one’s life. It becomes especially evident at the top of both processes, when, on the one hand, the mimesis-riven man is exhorted to fall back on Christ in His capacity of innermost model, and when, on the other hand, the Christian realizes that perfection in this lifetime is only attainable by way of self-denial nourished by loving contemplation of God.

The move from the regular external triangular mimetic desire to the “metaphysical” desire of the model’s/ (internal) mediator's/ obstacle’s being, and to the desire of the innermost model/ mediator (and only when untrue to form can this model be felt as an obstacle),  actually signifies or is paralleled by a gradual transformation, then a collapse of the mimetic triangle.

Especially when the mimetic relationship resembles a tug of war this transformation consists in that one of the vertices – that of the object of desire – is replaced by a mental/spiritual construct of love of self, or, love with one’s self, real or only perceived as such in the model by the (permanently or temporarily) weaker party. But if the protagonist – in dire need of reasserting himself when being spurned, humiliated or neglected by his very model/obstacle – is able to hold his ground, and fall back on his own narcissistic self-love to now propagate himself as an ostensibly lovable object of desire, first in his own eyes, then, hopefully, in the eyes of his (all of a sudden erstwhile) model/ obstacle, we might yet be witnessing a veritable mimetic dance. All that is fueled by vanity, or rather self-love manifesting itself as vanity, if not becoming vanity or vainglory itself.

Incidentally, the mimetic triangle never becomes a true quadrangle, thus testifying to the precariousness of narcissistic self-love: even in a relationship marked by an internal mediation that turns into a tug of war, the two phantoms of self-love will not coexist. When one is gaining the upper hand, the other is being depleted: sapped of its energy and bled dry by the one in the ascendant, its “owner” wallowing in despair – until the tide turns. 

The virtual collapse of the mimetic triangle can only happen if and when the innermost model is felt as legitimately demanding renunciation of either one’s being (cf. Buddhism, which actually holds that there is no self as such, following on its fundamental tenet of impermanence of everything), or of one’s self-love (mystical Christianity; but with no self-love and the collapse of the triangle also the very self of the mystic disappears, and the mystic falls back on Christ the source of his/her being and fount of his/her love – nothing but Christ in place of self; here spiritual pride or hubris is the main threat to the real disappearance of self-love, self-love manifesting itself as, or actually being hubris).

It is worth reaffirming here that as long as self-love reasserts itself in the mystic, his/her love cannot be or mirror that of Christ’s; it is spurious, a mere lifeless imitation thereof. Such is the unequivocal teaching of virtually all the early Christian writers from the East, as well as many from the West. Some Easterners, being truly Trinitarian in their views on man's union with God, held also that man's Christ-like kenosis can lead him/her to participation in the sharing of love between the Hypostases of the Trinity. Now that would also signify a mystical reemergence of the triangle, this time fully embedded in man's heart and much transformed: the ever dynamic figure letting, upon eradication of self-love, man's desire to be both truly loving as well as truly loved, find unceasing fulfillment. His/her theosis would now be full, manifesting itself as a radiance not unlike that of Jesus on Mount Tabor, as a passing-through of God's love to the world around. 

Among various formulations of man’s spiritual trichotomy – in contradistinction to the psychological dichotomy of body and soul – the Christian East posited the existence of the “spiritual” or rational soul at the pinnacle of man’s soul, there being lower down also the irascible soul and the concupiscent one. As mentioned above, Evagrius Ponticus fleshed out that construction with his proposition of eight logismoi, understood as evil passions, thoughts or even demons, eager to beset the human soul, each of them assigned to one of its three levels. Only pride and vainglory are proper to the spiritual soul, whereas envy – initially operative in mimetic desire – is proper to the irascible soul (Evagrius calls it “sadness” – at fellow men’s possessing or enjoying something, for some also at one's reactions of this sort; Gregory the Great renamed it “envy”). The other logismoi of the irascible soul are anger and acedia (listlessness verging on despair), whereas those of the concupiscent one are gluttony, lust and avarice.  

That delimitation uncannily dovetails with that that one could infer from Girard: the various stages and shades of a man’s quest to have his/her other-created desire met is splendidly characterized by the evil passions of the irascible soul; the two categories might naturally be viewed as the two sides of the same coin. Envy is almost always accompanied by anger or resentment, especially when frustrated, and can eventually turn “acedic.” This type of desire clearly is not appetitive in nature, it requires a mediator, who tends to be internalized while becoming an obstacle. Internal mediation is that type of mimetic mediation of desire that is most characteristic of someone in whom envy is coupled with anger or resentment.
 

Appetites are the domain of the concupiscent soul (sometimes also called “bodily soul”), although each of them can easily devolve into an other-generated desire, where all bounds and propriety are abandoned as the soul  is instigated to desire in excess of what would normally satisfy the respective appetite, or to desire objects not really needed to have it satisfied. The starting point here is what Girard calls external mediation, and at its initial stages desire pivots on an external object in possession of the mediator. 

Now if even those desires that are appetite-based, meaning that they are appetites in the absence of any model/mediator,  and only become mimetic desires – with their characteristic structure and crescendo of intensity – if and when models do appear, it is obvious that in human interactions there is actually no escaping their attendant rivalries, regardless of whether there actually is any scarcity to create or exacerbate them. And they tend to be sinister, easily degenerating into scapegoating and finally even into physical violence.

As the above clearly shows, and bearing in mind that according to Mimetic Theory the only model of desire worth imitating is Jesus Christ, any positive ethic built on it could only be radical: nothing short of a thoroughgoing effort at eliminating the self-love at the root of all the “bad” varieties of mimetic desire would do. And that would certainly have to include being vigilant and honest as to one’s real motivations behind the ostensible pursuit of Christ-the-model, impinging as they must on Christ's innermost mediation of man's metaphysical desire (succumbing to pride and narcissistic vainglory that beset one's spiritual soul preeminent among them).  In short, what would be called for would be an ethic advocating and incarnating the elimination of self-love, manifesting itself in various insidious forms described by Evagrius, an ethic of spiritual discernment and spiritual yet very practical asceticism, pointing to and leading man onto a way of contemplative yearning to become one with the model, to thus fill the vacuum at one’s center left by the emptying of the self of a self-love constituting that very self.

By way of conclusion: drawing on Evagrian thought (bolstered by some Buddhist insights) an attempt has been made to set out the basic ideas for a future expansion of Mimetic Theory into a formulation of “Girardian” ethic.  

In no particular order there follow some of its preliminary yet pivotal tenets:

·         Pursue the way of prayerful contemplation – to be transparent to God’s love, dissolving any barriers to it that also constitute one’s self.

·         Be guided by the metaphor of no-self also on returning to the world; “no-self but love” as one’s operative principle in order to be actuated by God’s love.

·         Spiritually discern the workings of various manifestations of self-love in one’s soul.

·         In light of the above, discern those manifestations within the movements of one’s mimetic desire, in order to defuse mimetic crises and rivalries.

·         Abide by Jesus’ “new commandment” of “loving one another just as I [Christ] have loved you.”

·         Be ready for martyrdom: ready to “lay down one’s life for one’s friends,” including as a latter-day scapegoat, if need be.

·         Abide by the principle of nonviolence; when fighting a particular case of injustice this would entail developing a deliberate strategy.

In modern, largely urban setting such an ethic could be tentatively called “open world ethic of no-self mysticism,” or “no-self mimetic ethic of mysticism in the world,” or “no-self ethic of urban mysticism,” or “mimetic mystical ethic of no-self,” or something along these lines, possibly employing also the Girardian term “interdividual.”

Mysticism as outlined above is in line with the sentiment expressed by some twentieth century Christian thinkers that religion (meaning Christianity) would either be mystical or would disappear altogether. While this might not be so, in a Girardian context and if the analysis above is valid, one is fully entitled to say that man, wildly mimetic and interdividual that he is, humanity as such, and the world could only be saved from apocalypse if man’s moral strivings were carried to their mystical limits, as described above.

Mimetic Theory & “Oversensitivity,” a Dangerous Combination?

In a nutshell modern man’s predicament as gleaned from Mimetic Theory could be characterized as follows: unrelentingly aggravated mimetic desire cannot these days progress all the way to a culmination (elimination of the scapegoat, resulting in social peace), and not just to an intermediate stage – only producing more and more aggravation – of scapegoating. Students or followers of MT tend to see it all clearly, including their inner drives and impulses. If they are very sensitive, and especially if on top of that they happen to be Christian, this sudden seeing of everything in a new light seems to require of them a thorough personal reevaluation of their motives and actions, past and present, and a commitment to a very demanding way of life. It opens them to suffering and can even lead them over the edge.

It comes as no surprise then that there have been reports by those apparently painted into a corner by Mimetic Theory that MT may be a dangerous concoction, even possibly leading to psychosis. It is thus only to have been expected that an opinion suggesting “oversensitivity” in the case of Rene Girard himself should be advanced, this disposition apparently aiding and abetting his development of MT, or, rather, both sides of the equation mutually contributing to and reinforcing each other. Moreover, it all may seem inevitable for a truly sensitive soul, on account of the theory’s religious angle and the exaggerated claims as regards scapegoating and violence.

Also, warning signs are apparently justified regarding those students of MT who seem to overly rely on it, trying to explain in its light the totality of human experience, inevitably laying themselves open to the dangers of MT’s virulent treatment of human desire. This is all the more relevant these days as MT pushes one to see each and every form of desire, viewed always as a triangular other-created desire (including what is called “metaphysical desire,” but mercifully excluding the “innermost” variety, directed toward the divine within man) as leading to scapegoating. Scapegoating is the ultimate sin, the worst thing a properly informed modern man (as every Westerner, not only a Christian, is expected to be) can possibly engage in. Scapegoating is violence, even if it tends not to be physical any more (though many a time it is, especially when it is directed at those the perpetrators, sometimes unbeknownst to themselves, do not regard as truly their peers). Jesus Christ was totally nonviolent, and so should we all be, Christian and non-Christian alike, to merit inclusion in modern Western civilization.   

Is avoiding violence at all costs really indicated by MT outside the religious context? According to Girard, scapegoating is a collective activity that is ultimately purposeful, even if and when, paradoxically, it is done unawares. It is supposed to bring peace to a community or society ravaged by a wave of an undifferentiation of shared hatred brought on – more often than not these days – by the initial reciprocal sentiments of injustice and contempt prevalent in that society. But also for this latter-day scapegoating to progress to a true-to-form Girardian scapegoat resolution what is needed is the elimination (expulsion, killing, etc.) of the scapegoat. For this to happen normally the scapegoat must be guilty as charged, no matter what that charge might be.

In the post-Christian Western world of ours the violence inherent in the scapegoating, as well as the elimination of the scapegoat, is mostly symbolic, since we have been trained to recognize in our sane state the scapegoat’s innocence (at least of the charges leveled against him in a scapegoating frenzy), as was Jesus, the ultimate Innocent Scapegoat, which has a somewhat mitigating effect.

Moreover, the violence of the culmination of a scapegoating episode could have been depicted in the times past and viewed as “normal” only if it resulted in the real elimination of the scapegoat. “Symbolic” elimination might not do the trick, the sought-for peace may not be restored. It also tends to expose every facet of the process involved, including the unexpected prevalence of scapegoating, drawing also those who would rather resist its pull.  And having been made aware of this mechanism, as any MT student would be, someone might suffer all the more for not being able to resist indulging his/her violent impulses as they emerge seemingly instigated by others’ violent or hateful actions. If so, one might be driven to adopt a religious perspective, as proposed also by Girard.

Only to find out that in a post-Resurrection world one is expected to love one’s enemies, which “discovery” has only been truly made (by some) in our post-Christian Western world, with all that it entails: thus from “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” to “do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two,” etc.

It is necessary to see that the specific injunctions above as to how to go about “not resisting an evil person” bear the marks of a deliberate strategy, as beautifully shown but Walter Wink. The same can be said about the actions of all those great men who followed the path of nonviolent resistance to injustice (Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc.). These were also aided by their charisma and renown.

Can one be expected to react in the same manner when out-of-the-blue confronted with somebody’s hate and/or violence, or even a prolonged and unrelenting scapegoating? It is hardly a viable proposition for a regular fellow, even a compassionate Christian.

But the Sermon on the Mount goes even further and deeper: “you are to be PERFECT, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and this from Jesus who elsewhere rebuked someone for calling Him merely “good:” “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”

Yet it is only this “PERFECTION” that is a state allowing man to be habitually loving. It has little to do with man’s moral striving, which can only produce a pious afterthought to an instinctual reaction.

Now Western Christianity does not even have a true theology of theosis or divinization, a transformative process that is expected to result in man’s likeness to, or union with, God – in this lifetime, not in the hereafter. As opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy which holds that theosis is the purpose of human life achievable through a synergy between human activity and God's uncreated energies.

An adherent of a religion while on this earth can normally achieve only, or even aspire to, what is there in that religion’s tenets or dogmas. This holds for all religions, not only for various Christian denominations. No wonder that Western Christianity’s preoccupation with morality, laced with guilt-feelings as it is, can hardly produce loving people. Even its mystical or contemplative strains are concerned with arriving at the “true self” (as opposed to the noxious “false” one) instead of  letting God’s energies dismantle the barriers constituting the very self itself. Then and only then can those energies, which I view as love, flood the whole of one’s being, which was created in the image of God. Then the image may be subsumed in the likeness to God, in a this-lifetime union with the Trinity.

It must be observed that this is something Girard never truly advocated or even explored. Our desires are left hanging there with no possibility of being satisfied or assuaged. In such a non-contemplative or mystical setting imitation of Christ is reduced to a moral striving that, many a time, instead of producing a spiritual person may land one in deep guilt-ridden spiritual trouble.

MT is just a highly rationalistic (as is Western Christianity in general), left-brain elaboration of problems that in the past used to be mostly emotional, but now are also more and more rational in the sense that their solutions are expected to be rational as well, instead of simply cathartic in nature. And that regardless of whether one is versed in MT or not.

But Christianity in this respect has also another facet, namely apophatic, mystical. There any problem that might surface is actually upheld as such, so that one may relate to it as a whole person, maintaining an apparent inherent tension therein, instead of trying to solve it intellectually. In such a setting the synthesis (i.e., a solution) of a problem one, or one’s community, is facing, broken down into a thesis and antithesis, is only discerned “through the mirror darkly.”

It actually echoes the effective dismissal of a rationalistic, discursive approach to logismoi (known in the West as deadly sins) proposed by Evagrius Ponticus in the late IV century Egyptian Desert monastic setting: one was expected to combat every sinful prompting with an antirrhesis (rejection) gleaned by him from his laborious Biblical research, or patterned on such an approach. Instead, in the Christian East then prevailed (and it does also now) the so-called monological approach – based on a repeated prayerful invocation of Jesus’ name and his mercy, expressed in the context of one’s sinfulness, called the Jesus Prayer, not on a tailor-made Bible-based refutation of the (first discerned) sinful prompting. 

Recognition at every passing moment of one’s life that one is a sinner is the kind of “levelling effects of the Gospel” that is truly called for the Christian student of MT, instead of his/her just realizing their equality as rampantly mimetic, desire-driven interdividuals. If put into the proper framework of a contemplative method, this recognition could move mountains. We are interdividual violent scapegoating sinners that, nevertheless, have a divine spark deep down within ourselves. But this love within will never be able to enflame us as long as we erect our selves (even if deemed “true”) over against our neighbors. 

For the sake of sanity, and with a view to becoming a loving person, the MT student’s overblown world of envy-driven desire – and his/her realization of their sinfulness, for that matter – must initially be treated with the balm of a developing apatheia, the first sign of a progress towards theosis. (Any non-MT student would certainly also benefit.) This dispassionateness allows one to see the existing hierarchies in a more objective light, not one immediately driving him/her into action in indignation over an apparent violence of injustice, mistaking one’s other-created (often deliberately by the powers that be) desire for one’s true need. The developing purity of heart also contributes to caring more about any injustice impacting one’s neighbor rather than oneself. This being a case of seeing the world through Christ’s eyes, one may not be far from “seeing God,” promised to those pure in heart in the Sermon on the Mount, which is another step towards man’s theosis.

Only in such a framework is the Christian’s progress towards perfection feasible or even conceivable. That lacking, we will never be free from violence in our hearts, we will never be truly loving. The way of contemplation holds out a promise that such a loving disposition can be achieved in this lifetime of ours, though it is a lifetime task. The (free) choice to pursue this goal is ours. 

Love Synesthesia & Holistic Mimesis. Reading St. Paul & Eric McLuhan

"The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law," writes Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:56. Yet Paul also writes in Romans 13:10 “…love is the fulfillment of the law.” Paul’s latter text might be seen as shedding liberating light on the puzzling dilemma of the former statements, especially for those who might be put off by them. So how long will man have to labor in thrall to sin and law – and (fear of) death? But does Paul propose a viable resolution? Maybe it is just another lifeless metaphoric formula apt to insinuate itself into fallen man’s mind without meaningfully reshaping the circuitry of the brain, plastic as it is? Under what conditions can it reflect harmony within man?

The formula is an invitation to recapturing the wholeness – though on a higher level of development – man lost in the process of individuation, which, as Rene Girard posits, actually is interdividuation, because man is so powerfully mimetic. This recapturing leads man from an unconscious “organic” mutual mimesis, through a warped, mostly one-sided mimesis effected by man’s mental faculties, where one can only try to sidestep it by acts of conscious imitation of a worthy religious model, and onto a grace-bestowed or regained wholeness lending itself to a holistic mimesis of love. For the Christian the latter is only possible by a putting on of the mind and body of Christ.

Now the law and love of the foregoing quotations might be interpreted as representing two different stages of man’s evolution, moral and otherwise. While sin (transgression) may be seen as representing the principle of change, retrograde change in this case. Change might be lethal, as Paul writes, unless it is effected in and through love. Now obviously change is inevitable and called for. So, what has it been for man? And what is it going to be? Sin – and death? Or, love – and life?

Man used to be mimetic as a “whole,” relying on his mirror neurons. The empathy-tending, care-concerned circuitry of his right brain balanced that of the blindly-grasping-yet-conformist, utility-preoccupied left brain. When as a social creature man became conscious (i.e., truly literate), he ceased being a “whole” to himself, just as others ceased being “wholes” to him. He immediately stood in need of a codex of law (duly “handed” to him in various cultures) to regulate his suddenly unruly, menacing-social-peace and disjointed behavior dictated by his now “literate,” and preponderant to boot, left hemisphere.

His mimesis could no more be that of a whole person. He was literate, he was conscious. So? He “chose” to deceive himself, not seeing that fragments of him, guided now only by some of his senses, and to varying degrees, were engaging in a kind of (predominantly left-brain) mimesis that was contrary to what he (and his law codex) officially stood for.   

With the rise of mass media, that disjointed left-brain, suddenly very powerful, mostly verbally-mediated mimesis opened him wide, and en masse, to the influence of theories and ideologies. The results turned out to be disastrous.

So where are we now? With the social media holding sway over us we are in yet another place, more “un-whole” and discarnate still, more disjointed and all over the place. Our mimetic behaviors do nor abate, but take on new forms, apparently now more broadly-based in our sensorium, though not necessarily truly holistic or more wholesome. Yet there is a new phenomenon abroad that we may refuse to pay heed to only at our peril. We are pulsating with desire for wholeness.

We are craving for the touch, that most basic sensory experience. Human touch, God’s touch. Many people are drawn to contemplation seeking (and some finding) God’s presence. How is this presence apprehended, if at all? Isn’t it a sense of touch of the divine, experienced directly (or only imagined or visualized, as the case maybe)? Our craving for contemplation is a craving for wholeness, while contemplation itself tends toward and has many of the marks of holistic mimesis.

Girard made (some of) us mimesis-literate (rather than truly “conscious;” that requires hard work.) Knowing the mechanism is never enough. But it is a start. And there is a solution, though a tough one. It is a mimetic act as it must be for man. We have to recapture wholeness, that is first of all we have to become truly incarnate again. Love must be a guiding principle and energy on the way to this-lifetime re-incarnation of ours, as well as the crown of glory striven for. Love guides change, nay, prompts it.

There is no other model/mediator for the Christian than the man Jesus, who is also the Word become flesh. To have any meaning whatsoever, our mimesis of Jesus has to be holistic, that is bodily first. What does that mean? We must follow in His footsteps when He tends the needy and the sick, the underprivileged and  the rejected. It is a physical act before it can become a spiritual one. Otherwise not only will it be false, but we will be forever disembodied somewhere is the stratosphere of our deceitful, falsely pious imagination. Not amounting even to true prayer. 

It is a gradual process. Before it can become holistically mimetic, it starts as a willful imitation of Jesus the man. He then may bestow on us the grace needed not only to truly follow Him in our incarnate daily pursuits, but also allowing us to start acquiring His mind. Gradually becoming of one mind with Him in a life quest patterned on and mirroring the spiritual ascent of lectio divina. Then one day, on the final rung of it, the mystical contemplation, we might be blessed by truly becoming one spirit with Him. Though this contemplation might be such as described by John of the Cross, pure-faith-based and nourishing our soul only darkly.

The advent of the gift of contemplation will signify that Jesus has led us in His grace from the place of hope that He, the incarnate Word, is, through the mystical locus of pure faith – unto the summit of love. The very love that enabled our quest in the first place. Or is it His quest for us?

God is Love and Love is God. It is life and creation as one. It takes this love for us humans to return to wholeness. Yet not a wholeness submerged in an ocean of the unconscious, as was the case at the beginning of man’s quest, though. Nor is it going to be a self-based identity relying mostly on man’s mental faculties. It must be an embodied wholeness of love, a love partaking of its source and yet fully incarnate in its human manifestation. Just as Jesus Christ forever is for us – and in us, as long as we are love’s living crucible.  

What follows is a vision worth meditating upon – as well as pursuing.

At this lofty stage man’s mimetic quality will also have spiraled upward full circle, reflective of man’s model/mediator. We shall then be conscious, but not self-conscious in the sense of being preoccupied with ourselves. Our whole sensorium – corporeal, intellectual and spiritual – will be involved in an ongoing mimesis. This will necessarily include the Buddhists-recognized sixth sense, that of the mind/consciousness, which actually consists of several modalities reflective of man’s biological and cultural evolution. The two hemispheres of the brain will again be in balance, allowing for an empathy-imbued mimesis, where covetousness and envy are short-circuited and thus held in check.

Each and every one of us creatures will at this stage be a whole forming a part of the Whole, a whole whose biologically- and culturally-evolved multilayer sense modalities will allow for an ever more perfect integration and bonding. Expressing this wholeness, our inner and outer senses will become mutually complementary.

Having interiorized  and actively living by Christ’s moral teachings of nonviolence, forgiveness and brotherly love our bodily being will be driven by an unquenchable, virtually palpable hope, reflecting and actively expressing bodily synesthesia. Reading the Scriptures and the Book of Nature, our faith-imbued mind will be one with that of Christ, participating in His truth and wisdom, constantly verging on if not engaged in and experiencing contemplation, that is unmediated mimetic knowing, tending toward  intellectual synesthesia. And then, God-willing, in one fell swoop or gradually emerging, all will be subsumed in spiritual synesthesia, that of love, handmaid of holistic mimesis, imbuing our whole being. Everything will be permeated by this life-creating and sustaining love, the ultimate good there is, the supreme bond of oneness of the Whole.

Why Did Girard Dismiss Buddhism?

A controversy has been raised again that Girard’s self-designated anthropology is a system of thought not deserving that appellation. As if to corroborate this claim it has been pointed out that it has not made as much as a mark in the field of anthropology proper.

Not being an anthropologist myself, I would nevertheless easily concede that Girard’s thought does not amount to a well-rounded anthropology. Yet I admire many of his insights and think that they have “changed my life,” but more for religious reasons than any others. Of course, his theory has many facets, and the basic mimetic aspect of it is in my opinion not only illuminating, nay, ground-breaking but also unimpeachable. But when this mimesis escalates to extremes, when scapegoats are created and condemned to ostensibly produce the “sacred” – that is, where the whole theory bears on anthropology the most  –  I do have my doubts. The main reason being that it is difficult if not impossible to find examples of this mechanism outside mythic settings in order to be able to establish how universal the scenario of an innocent scapegoat being declared guilty then becoming “sacred,” with peace ensuing, actually is. The most doubtful to me is the purported prevalence of the last step. The fact that, as Girard declared, the mechanism ceased operating following the Christian revelation does not help either. No production of the peace-bestowing sacred any more, while scapegoats’ supply seemingly remains undiminished, though they are now a different breed, many of them self-designated.

I do not have any doubts in the case of Jesus as seen through the Girardian lens, though. That particular case, as standing in total contradistinction to the regular resolution of scapegoating AS POSITED by Girard, gives an incredible intellectual as well as moral boost and guidance to the Christian. It has the potential to transform those who come under its (or rather His, the innocent self-sacrificing victim’s) spell.

But the scapegoating scenario as such in Girard’s thought emerges from his reading of myth and various scriptures, and is descried by him in “secular” literature as well, as the completion of the mimetic cycle. Now obviously Girard could have only read so much, and picked this piece of literature as opposed to that. And his choices are telling as well as being reflected in his theory.

One important choice or rather omission is his dismissal of Buddhism – with its take on and proposed solution to the MIMETIC CYCLE. I put it in capital letters to underscore that classical Buddhism, in its voluminous literature, scriptural and otherwise, actually saw and dealt with the very problem that was of preeminent interest for Girard. Yet he chose to disregard it, even though at the end of his life he investigated sacrifice in Hinduism, and Buddhism obviously had been an anti-sacrificial response to that religion or rather slew of religions. For an anthropology staking its claim to importance based on the role of sacrifice it should certainly be worthwhile to investigate Buddhism both in terms of its religious content, as well as its societal and cultural expressions. It becomes even more indicated if one bears in mind that many Buddhists have been claiming all along that their religion is actually a psychology.  

Buddhism’s main preoccupation is actually with mimesis of desire, it could be construed as largely a psychology of defusing the mimetic cycle. How could then have it been ignored by Girard? Was he, as he has been charged, myopic in seeing only things Western as worth investigating? Or was it that he did not like the proposed solutions? I am convinced that it is the latter. Actually he did say precisely that stating that Buddhism amounted to nihilism. Still it is a great pity that it must have been that he chose to ignore it rather than investigate.

What follows is an outline of Buddhism as religion/psychology seen through the lens of those above-mentioned preeminent Girardian topics. Then I move on to a very brief outline of Buddhist history and culture to ground that religion-psychology in context, also worthy of anthropological inquiry.

Buddhism’s solution to the heart-rending mimesis of desire, which is fully acknowledged there as the most disruptive human quality, is not transcendental (or innermost) mimesis of Christ – as Girard came to propose, which insight is obviously rejected by non-Christian Girardian (they of course have the right to do so, the thought is able to stand its ground even absent this insight) – but by pointing to the possibility of doing away with mimesis altogether. That Girard would not acknowledge – or even investigate.

Now how man can escape this seemingly ineluctable predicament of imitating someone else’s desire, escalating in due course, and through well defined, inevitable stages,  to a crisis that might end up in violence? According to Buddhism two initial insights are crucial: (1) desire always produces suffering, (2) to avoid this suffering one has to realize that – as everything is impermanent, including man himself, and one’s suffering and the desire that caused it in the first place  – one does not really, or substantially, exist.

But that is only a concept and as such cannot possibly be meaningful to a desire-ridden man. How can it become relevant to man? Through a process of gaining experiential knowledge of it. How is it accomplished? Through a thorough grounding in insight meditation.

Many religion experts will admit that initial beliefs largely determine what is later confirmed by religious practices, including such as meditation/contemplation. And so it is with Buddhist practice. People are initially drawn to its tenets wanting to solve their life problems, and are able to come out of practice with stronger, experiential grounding in them. The same is true of Christianity or any other religion, unless something out of the ordinary happens to shake the initial belief system. Or, especially these days, getting weary not seeing the DESIRED results fast enough, they find something seemingly more attractive in the spiritual marketplace.

I think that the differing perceptions of suffering are crucial in a comparative analysis of the two religions. Christianity is sometimes in a caricature fashion portrayed as extolling suffering. Normally suffering is considered there as being part and parcel of human life and as such should not be avoided at all cost. But that is precisely what classical Buddhism is advocating. Moreover, and more important as well, it sees this task as feasible.

Remember now the two approaches: classical Buddhism – doing away with desire (and thus also with mimesis of desire); Christianity (according to Girard, but also to many saints and mystics; vide Thomas a Kempis’ Imitatio Christi) –  positive, or transcendental (or innermost) mimesis of Christ; the latter seemingly replete with unavoidable suffering.

But why the latter would have to be so? Because man falters along the way? Yes, but preeminently because he is delusional about himself, not (immediately) seeing that instead of following Christ he is actually puffing up his self or ego. This “exalted” self is of course taken to be false, but that is a weak consolation to a faltering man, charged with the task of constant spiritual discernment if he is to have any chance of salvation.  Man is in a double bind: desire as such has its own dynamic where it easily loses its initial goal of imitating Christ, and gets diverted to competing with and envying fellow men pursuing the same goal – if not to other, overtly sinful, pursuits.  

Can man, as classical Buddhism posits, do entirely away with desire, as opposed to appetite, and thus also with mimesis, if we assume Girard’s view of desire being entirely mimetic? Even only if and when eagerly pursuing meditative practices ostensibly designed to accomplish that? Let us see what state-of-the-art neuroscience has to say on that.

Obviously no neuroscientific study has addressed precisely this problem. Yet many studies have tangentially touched upon it, to the extent that it is at least possible to somehow reflect on, rather than fully investigate, the subject.  

What needs to be addressed first of all is whether the concept of mimesis can be construed as bearing only on desire. On the one hand, that is where Girard’s thought seems to limit itself. On the other, neuroscience posits that mirror neurons, which are operational if not indispensable in any mimesis, are also involved in the mechanism of empathy. And that is where Buddhism seems to have been compelled to step back from positing a fully quality-less self, that is no-self, as man’s proximate goal striven for in meditation – by exhorting him to cultivate empathy-based loving-kindness in that same meditation where one is supposed to be gaining insight into one’s impermanent, immaterial “no-self.”

How can this be made consistent? Is there practically possible a “pure,” essentially atomistic, Buddhist approach? Certainly neuroscience might be of help, allowing any concept of “self” to be fleshed out if not corroborated or refuted. What immediately becomes evident is that equipped with evolution-evolved mirror neurons, interdividual man cannot help being social, even in his striving to avoid seemingly negative evolution-built-in mechanisms.

Now on top of the layers of the brain evolved earlier in evolution – the reptilian, then the limbic or emotional brain – there is the cerebrum where most mirror neurons seem to be located, apparently in both the left and right hemisphere of the brain. When triggered they in turn link with and activate other neurons and systems, many of them located in those older parts of the brain. And that may result in atavistic behavior that moral man would not necessarily be proud of.

I assume here that in not so distant a future neuroscience will be able to flesh out the bicamerality of the human brain. And so while referring to existing studies, I allow myself now to speculate based on this assumption. What follows then is my take on what plausibly happens in the two approaches: the Buddhist and  non-Buddhist, including the Christian Christ-mimesis.

There are studies (referred to by, e.g., Daniel Siegel and Iain McGilchrist) that indicate that the phenomenon of empathy involves mostly mirror neurons located in the right brain, which is long known as holistic and creative, as opposed to the left brain’s analytic as well as routine-enabling function. It is thus entirely plausible that when the initial empathy “degenerates” into or is cross-wired with desire to imitate one’s fellow man what is involved then is predominately left brain’s mirror neurons. This cross-wiring must become even more pronounced with mimesis of, as Girard posits, envy-based desire devolving into rivalry and especially when it becomes violent. Parts of the "older" brain fired then are not the ones that would be fired with pure empathy.

One thing seemingly being successfully dealt with when one gets involved headlong in the mimetic cycle is the problem of suffering. Any nascent experience of suffering can here be apparently overcome through a stronger involvement in the cycle – more adrenaline flowing, a clearly set goal of pursuit. No need to look at suffering at this initial stage. A logical reflection that it might come later as an unfortunate result of this involvement is pushed aside by an expectation of attaining to the goal, or made entirely impossible in that hyped-up state.

Suffering aside, on the mimetic rollercoaster one is able all the more easily to employ resources of the left hemisphere – its verbalizing and justifying function, in the absence of empathy. Which amounts to total blindness, not only emotional: one actually does not see one’s fellow man; instead it is a construct without a face and lacking proportions or any human qualities, gradually yet more and more quickly becoming reduced to the status of pure obstacle. Envy has given way to resentment, then to hatred. Scapegoating is possible given conducive social conditions.

Seemingly nothing new here. Yet the reflection or, partly, speculation as to the role of the respective hemispheres and mirror neurons is truly shedding new light. On top on any scientific explanation it is also able to provide a new approach based on meaningful METAPHOR.

Now in a religious or spiritual approach to self-transformation any such metaphor might be very helpful and for some people outright crucial, as reinforcing beliefs held initially. Nay, transporting one onto a higher spiritual plane, one consistent with those beliefs yet much richer and more meaningful.

And so classical Buddhism-advocated insight meditation that is expected to gain insight (or reinforce the held belief, as many postulate) into man’s basic impermanence and substantial nonexistence, is nevertheless expected to be supplemented by an attitude of loving-kindness toward everybody and everything that comes within man’s purview during that meditation, and, indeed, beyond it.  While it might at first seem illogical, it makes sense based on contemporary knowledge of the brain, because it fosters right-brain holistic approach to oneself and all else, as indicated above. Otherwise the meditator would open himself to the  instigations of his left brain and would easily fall prey to a sinister mimetic cycle of desire. 

So what could be a response in those terms of contemplative Christians advocating imitatio Christi? And, on the other hand, is it not essentially and practically love that is being stressed by the Buddhists, those proverbial nihilists, as put down not only by Girard, but also by St. John Paul II, among many other Christian heavy-weights? Is not God in (or, of) Christianity – love?

As unfortunate as those pronouncements are, we should nevertheless see and appreciate what imitatio Christi imbuing Christian contemplation implies in those same terms applied to Buddhist insight meditation.

On the one hand, the contemplative is reaching for an abundance beyond compare, so any danger of the spiritual process devolving into a vicious scarcity-fed mimetic cycle is nullified, or at least reduced to a minimum. (That might happen when imitation instead of focusing on Christ, is centered on the teacher or guide; the same danger lurks for guru-imitating Buddhists, though.)

On the other hand, the only way to actually imitate Christ in contemplation is quickly found out to consist in emptying oneself of any “self” one may have constructed as a vehicle of contemplation, or virtuous living, for that matter. In undergoing Christ-like kenosis spurred on only by love of and for Christ, which two facets are in due course intuited as  the same thing, the love that must of necessity embrace one’s fellow humans, including one’s enemies, as well as the whole universe.

In my opinion it is helpful to hold in one’s quest for Christian contemplation onto the guiding metaphor of no-self, which actually is “shorthand” for “kenosis unto nothing but Christ in place of self.” And just as Christ’s kenosis is for eternity imbued with forgiveness and love, so is one to hope will in due course be the case with one’s contemplation; the whole transformative process duly grounded in faith.  

Is it all that different from Buddhist insight-loving-kindness meditation? Allowed by brain plasticity, in both cases the mimetic cross-wiring has to be undone so that man can be emptied of his many a time culturally reinforced at least if not acquired mimetic mechanisms. Man is actually shorn of self in the process. Any guiding metaphor of self in this approach other than no-self would just be standing in the way of nearing this ever elusive target. By the way, the respective belief systems remain, resulting in the outcome being described in differing terms. But that must not be viewed as a real obstacle to mutual understanding, respect and kindness.

Now, what about Girard? Why did he choose not to delve into this seemingly illuminative approach and insights to problems he investigated? Only distaste for the apparent nihilism? He actually alluded at least once that he himself was “very mimetic,” so he may have not wanted to investigate an approach apparently denying any utility to mimesis instead of trying to transform it.

Yet had he done so, he would have found that Buddhist approach not only can be viewed as having started with an “innocent self-sacrificing scapegoat” to reveal the scapegoat mechanism for what it was, but also was arguably much less productive of scapegoats during its more than slightly longer history, as compared to Christianity.

That “innocent self-sacrificing scapegoat” was (is) man sacrificing his “self” instead of pumping it up to the point of creating mimetic rivalry and conflict resulting in violence and the scapegoat, as has been the case with the Christian and now post-Christian world. Such sacrifice is actually hardly more than metaphoric or psychological. Stressing and employing non-sacrificial and nonviolent means of pursuing peace has always been of utmost significance. And those monks who chose to protest against injustice or “imperialist” incursion by self-immolation made sure that it was nonviolent to anybody else, while also trying to maintain equanimity of mind and heart that would shield them from any resentment or hatred they might be feeling toward their perceived oppressors (Vietnam), while public peace meditation gatherings manage to  rally tens of thousands of people in the public square (Thailand). Buddhism has always been totally anti-sacrificial, to the point that some purists had insisted on refraining from cooking due to its alleged association with sacrifice. And if Buddhism is considered other-worldly or “atomistic,” one had better look again: beggar-monk communities are willingly supported by communities at large, while in turn receiving spiritual advice and guidance from the monks (Sri Lanka, Thailand).

Now Buddhism as a political force came into being with Ashoka, a III century BCE Indian emperor who converted to that religion having waged a bloody war of conquest, crushed by the inflicted suffering. While spreading Buddhism and its dharma he subsequently managed to introduce peace  and rule of law as well as social and even animal welfare programs (he banned Vedic animal sacrifices) to his unified empire. He  had many pillars erected across his empire, inscribed with his edicts meant also to spread Buddhist dharma, with alphabetic writing being spread as well and Buddhist culture being solidified.  

Buddhism in India fell on hard times especially in the wake of Islamic conquests as well as resurging Hinduism, and virtually disappeared there by the XI century CE (though some pockets survived much longer.) Yet not before it had spread to many adjacent and far away countries which, leavened by its message, managed to evolve rich Buddhist cultures of their own that managed to survive if not thrive as opposed to in its cradle. And a revival Buddhist movement in India started in the mid-1950s springing from a perception that Buddhism was the only way for the Untouchables to escape their systemic scapegoating and to gain equality.

Today many Buddhist countries experience certain phenomena seemingly not in keeping with their religious traditions. Colonialism has been blamed by some commentators as having put its sinister stamp on them, while others ascribe their apparent lack of vitality and social malaise precisely to Buddhism itself. It is true that in some countries the situation looks (or just recently looked) rather bleak: Sri Lanka is still licking wounds following a devastating civil war between the Buddhist Sinhalese and Hinduist Tamils, while some Myanmar Buddhist monks are reported to be leading the persecution of that country’s Rohingya Moslem minority.  

Those facts and examples, which I gleaned mostly from countries of Theravada Buddhism (i.e., deriving from and based on its classical variety), are of course of interest to historians, political scientists and religion comparatists but might or even should be also to anthropologists, and especially so to those of a Girardian bent. When combined with the seeming relevance and importance of Buddhist religion and psychology to Girardian thought, Buddhism in all its aspects makes all the more powerful a case for the need to be investigated from a mimetic theory perspective. There might be significant insights gained also for comparative social sciences when results of studies focusing on a long-time ostensible societal devaluation, if not advocated suppression, of mimetic desire are in.